1.9 mil for naked Bea Aurthur ??? Really?

[Spunky Porkstacker]

First of all why did the artist feel the need for this?

Secondly, how accurate is the painting? lol

Lastly, the buyer has too much money, as I could think of a lot better way to spend 1.9 mil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/nude-bea-arthur-painting-by-john-currin-sells-christies-auction_n_3284898.html

 

[supraman]

Pre-camera porn nice!!!</p>

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

Schwwwwing!</p>

 

[jakobeast]

I can't wait for the Betty White riding a horse nude in St. Olaf.</p>

 

[CLWolf81]

Is it safe to say the person who bought this portrait might be a necrophiliac? </p>

 

[The Count Dante]

Or transvestite curious?</p>

 

[howcho]

Hey he gives her a nice rack!</p>

 

[the canadian dream]

Currin is a big name..check that..a huge name.. in the modern art world. The painting sold because his name is attached to it and less because of this single work itself (although it's not his best its pretty good not 1.9 mill good). Google Currin and look at some of his other works. He always does these incredible characters of celebs and women and sexuality. A very baroque style modernized in theme in which no one has ever done. He paints modern celebs as if they would have been painted by the great Baroque artists who painted biblical and peoples of political power. The statement is simple but effective and technically (if you like that) Currin is astonishing. You will actually probably recognize a lot of his work. Not shocked it went for that price. Some people pay obscene amounts of money for a cars, antiques, etc etc. Different strokes for different folks. Whatcha talkin boot Bea Aurthur?</p>